我只是遇到了这个问题，但在我的情况下思考这个问题给出了最好的解决方案，与预期的解决方案无关。

It could be quite a common case, basically, I'm reading from one source list and creating objects based on them in a destination list, however, I have to check whether the source items are valid first and want to return the row of any error. At first-glance, I want to get the index into the enumerator of the object at the Current property, however, as I am copying these elements, I implicitly know the current index anyway from the current destination. Obviously it depends on your destination object, but for me it was a List, and most likely it will implement ICollection.

i.e.

var destinationList = new List<someObject>();
foreach (var item in itemList)
{
  var stringArray = item.Split(new char[] { ';', ',' }, StringSplitOptions.RemoveEmptyEntries);

  if (stringArray.Length != 2)
  {
    //use the destinationList Count property to give us the index into the stringArray list
    throw new Exception("Item at row " + (destinationList.Count + 1) + " has a problem.");
  }
  else
  {
    destinationList.Add(new someObject() { Prop1 = stringArray[0], Prop2 = stringArray[1]});
  }
}

我认为，虽然不总是适用，但常常足以值得一提。

不管怎样，关键是有时在你的逻辑中已经有了一个不明显的解决方案……

我只是遇到了这个问题，但在我的情况下思考这个问题给出了最好的解决方案，与预期的解决方案无关。

It could be quite a common case, basically, I'm reading from one source list and creating objects based on them in a destination list, however, I have to check whether the source items are valid first and want to return the row of any error. At first-glance, I want to get the index into the enumerator of the object at the Current property, however, as I am copying these elements, I implicitly know the current index anyway from the current destination. Obviously it depends on your destination object, but for me it was a List, and most likely it will implement ICollection.

i.e.

var destinationList = new List<someObject>();
foreach (var item in itemList)
{
  var stringArray = item.Split(new char[] { ';', ',' }, StringSplitOptions.RemoveEmptyEntries);

  if (stringArray.Length != 2)
  {
    //use the destinationList Count property to give us the index into the stringArray list
    throw new Exception("Item at row " + (destinationList.Count + 1) + " has a problem.");
  }
  else
  {
    destinationList.Add(new someObject() { Prop1 = stringArray[0], Prop2 = stringArray[1]});
  }
}

我认为，虽然不总是适用，但常常足以值得一提。

不管怎样，关键是有时在你的逻辑中已经有了一个不明显的解决方案……

这是我刚想到的解决这个问题的办法

原始代码:

int index=0;
foreach (var item in enumerable)
{
    blah(item, index); // some code that depends on the index
    index++;
}

更新代码

enumerable.ForEach((item, index) => blah(item, index));

扩展方法:

    public static IEnumerable<T> ForEach<T>(this IEnumerable<T> enumerable, Action<T, int> action)
    {
        var unit = new Unit(); // unit is a new type from the reactive framework (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/devlabs/ee794896.aspx) to represent a void, since in C# you can't return a void
        enumerable.Select((item, i) => 
            {
                action(item, i);
                return unit;
            }).ToList();

        return pSource;
    }

我不同意在大多数情况下使用for循环是更好的选择的说法。

Foreach是一个有用的构造，在所有情况下都不能被for循环所取代。

例如，如果您有一个DataReader，并使用foreach循环遍历所有记录，它会自动调用Dispose方法并关闭阅读器(然后自动关闭连接)。因此，这是更安全的，因为它可以防止连接泄漏，即使您忘记关闭读取器。

(当然，总是关闭读取器是很好的做法，但如果你不这样做，编译器就不会捕捉到它——你不能保证你已经关闭了所有的读取器，但你可以通过养成使用foreach的习惯，使它更有可能不会泄漏连接。)

对于Dispose方法的隐式调用，可能还有其他有用的例子。

只需添加自己的索引。保持简单。

int i = -1;
foreach (var item in Collection)
{
    ++i;
    item.index = i;
}

最后，c# 7有一个不错的语法，用于在foreach循环(即元组)中获取索引:

foreach (var (item, index) in collection.WithIndex())
{
    Debug.WriteLine($"{index}: {item}");
}

需要一个小扩展方法:

using System.Collections.Generic;

public static class EnumExtension {
    public static IEnumerable<(T item, int index)> WithIndex<T>(this IEnumerable<T> self)       
       => self.Select((item, index) => (item, index));
}